The aim of this blog is to maintain a presence for the pro-heterosexual lobby on the internet. It was conceived as a response to the attempted intimidation of heterosexual and ex-gay people by gay activists in Uganda.
It is also meant to provide factual information in the face of gay propaganda.
The blog is unashamedly Christian.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Conversation with Gay Uganda 2

This appeared on an anti-Christian blog. It was given a robust response as follows;

This is the kind of love that this sinner would rather do without. The love of Ssempa, Buturo, Langa, Orombi, and various others. Christians, who hate the sin of homosexuality, but love us homosexuals.

Matter of fact, I have been set off by some anonymous commentor on the blog. He or she was supporting Buturo, that he is against the ‘spread of homosexuality’ but not homosexuals. Poor Christian, needing to disguise hate for love.I think it is the bare faced hypocrisy that touches me. I don’t mind a person saying he hates me. Me, as in a homosexual. I am what I am. Someone may say that he hates me because I am black or a nigger. I will shrug it off. I don’t love everybody. Hell, I am also prone to prejudice!But when someone puts a knife in me, and starts splitting hairs on how the hate that he or she shows is in truth love, I see red.

Ok, fact is, I see it as a chance to turn that knife into his or her face and twist it, a little, and more than a little! Ssempa, the anti-gay Ssempa who loves us so much that he believes we should get HIV…! Why? Because, if, God forbid, we were allowed to have the knowledge to stop ourselves from getting HIV we would just be ‘promoting homosexuality’. And you know what, the sin of promoting homosexuality is so heinious that it is important for all Christians to prevent others from commiting it. It is worse than making sure that fellow human beings get HIV because they are homosexuals. Poor Christians indeed! I thought he had stopped reasoning like that, but apparently he is continuing... The 'representative' of some American Right activists...!I can quote the number of times, the vitriol that has poured out of the mouth of Minister for Ethics and Integrity in Uganda, Nsaba Buturo. He wants us out of the country, we are worse than animals, immoral, etc, etc. The words that pour out of the gentleman’s mouth, the hate speech is so un-Christian that many people are shocked that he says all ‘in the name of Jesus’! But he does, all in the name of Jesus. See, in Uganda, nothing is too bad for homosexuals.Listening to Stephen Langa and his friends from America, I was stuck by how hate filled this can all be. They have one premise. Homosexuality and homosexuals must be evil. Starting from they manufacture lies, half truths, conspiracy theories, and others. All of these are ‘proof’ that homosexuals are evil. I am galled by the people who go ahead and believe it all. Why do they believe? Because homosexuals are evil. So, what is there not to believe?

Someone stated in a comment that although in the US, homosexuals are 5% of the population, they commit 30% of the child abuse. Is it true? I don’t know the figures on child abuse in the US, but when I see that kind of assertion, I immediately suspect that it is not true. But, someone does believe it. And why do they? Why do they believe that kind of thing? Because they have to. They have this image of me the homosexual as so evil that anything that is bad is easily blamed on me. Their hate has to be justified. They cannot believe that a homosexual cannot be good. No. Never. Why not? Because he or she is a homosexual!

Sad, isn’t it?

George Oundo, and his ex-gay friends, have been going around 'outing' people on radio and television in Uganda. They did it under the good Christian help of Ssempa, and Langa, and the 'Family Life Network'. Listening to Oundo, you would be struck by how much venom and hate he was spitting, frothing against his gay friends. Was that love? No. It was poison. Hate. But this was a 'young christian' who was being encouraged in his new expression of love to 'out' gay people. Listening to him, I wondered how Ssempa and Langa could even associate with this naked hate. It does mean something to trumpet that someone is Christian, doesnt it? Well, maybe it does.

But why do Christians hate us so much?See, I told you that I am also subject to prejudices. But, forgive me. It is Christians who are persecuting me. I ask to be left in peace, they throw stones and hammers, and bibles and other things. The hate speech that is coming out of their mouth is in the name of their being Christians. Am I wrong to paint all Christians with the same tar brush?There are Christians who are gay. (Course, Orombi does not believe that Gene Robinson is a Christian. But that is an internal matter for them, and I don’t belong to that club… What I know is that both are Christians…!) And there are others who take it upon themselves to attack the hate speech that the Ssempa’s preach. Like Desmond Tutu.

Sadly, it is a human failing, choosing out a small, minority group that can be bullied and hated and thrown to the lions. We always forget, that they are also humans. It is by an active act of thought that we root out this kind of prejudice. That we make it irrelevant. Or, like I do, we start wondering why others don’t see what we see!

GayUgandaPosted by gayuganda at 5:43 PMLabels: Christian, George Oundo, homosexuality, Nsaba Buturo, Ssempa, Stephen Langa6 comments:Leonardo Ricardo said...I added a link to this site and this posting regarding the aledged ¨Christian Love¨ at the following:http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/henry_orombis_song_of_himself_1.html#comments(hope it´s ok)There was quite a lot of conversation about the recent tabloid published ¨praising¨ Bishop Orombi...I´m afraid I can´t ¨praise¨ Orombi or Scott Lively or the rest of their would-be lynch mob until they STOP tormenting fellow human beings (especially at Church).

Hi gug,Christians feature a lot on this blog, in an unfavourable light. As one who seeks so much to be understood, perhaps you are able to understand Christian opposition to homosexuality.I won't bother to correct any innaccurate interpretations of Christian statements and scriptures. Going straight to the heart of the matter, Christians believe the fundamental structure of society is threatened by an encroaching gay culture. That gay activism is meant to destroy society as we know it.You have always denied this. So tell me whether the blueprint for 'Overhauling Straight America' written by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill is something you have seen before. If so, how can you describe Christian efforts to counter that strategy as homophobic? gug, the Truth matters. You know ths which is why you are always seeking information. Marshall and Kirk state,

"We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. " They go on to propose a strategy that includes manipulating the media and via the media, the general public. The language is all about deception, for example,

" In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!"

The Table of Contents makes it clear this is an operations manual;

Contents

1. Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly And Often As Possible

"The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it."

Perhaps the idea of gays 'recruiting' straights is in context now?

2. Portray Gays As Victims, Not As Aggressive Challengers

"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. "

3. Give Protectors A Just Cause4. Make Gays Look Good5. Make The Victimizers Look Bad

"At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. "

Are Pastor Ssempa and Stephen Langa being vilified by any chance?

6. Solicit Funds: The Buck Stops HereGetting On The Air, Or, You Can't Get There From HereStart With The Fine Print (Using the Print Media)Visual Stage 1: You Really Oughtta Be In Pictures (TV Advertising)Visual Stage 2: Peekaboo AdvertisingVisual Stage 3: Roll Out The Big GunsFormat A For Familiarization: The TestimonialFormat B: The Celebrity SpotFormat C for Victim Sympathy: Our Campaign to Stop Child AbuseFormat D for Identification with Victims: The Old SwitcheroFormat E for Vilification of Victimizers: Damn the TorpedoesFormat F for Funds: SOSThe Time Is Now

There you have it. It has now been published as a book. If you really believe in 'live and let live', let the Christians defend the way of life that is subject to the onslaught descrbed in 'Overhauling Straight America."

You did it again, re the statistic on child sex abuse by heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yo admt you did not know it and immediately rubbish it. Okay, what if it were true? What would be the implications?

Anon,you are realy annoying. Ok. Here is my response. No 1. Get some education on critical thinking. Reasoning. You are hell bent on accusing me of something. I say I dont know anything about it. And in the next post you continue the same reasoning. Maybe I am too charitable. Too kind to the likes of you and your ilk. Stop accusing me of crimes which you manufacture. Is that clear enough? It is very easy to hide behind your point making, your quasi logic. Just kindly stop accusing me of the figments of your dreams. It is annoying, it just does not suit your given intelligence. No. 2 I have talked a lot about Christians here. There are some Christians who made me face my prejudices. I was honest. They made me understand the difference between the likes of you and them. They are Christians and they show love to me as a homosexual. They know I am not a Christian, and that I have had a hard time with Christians. But they were very able to show me their love, inspite of the fact that they disagreed with me. Now, to you Anon 1 the homophobic Christian. Show me the ways I, a non Christian, and a homosexual can dare see the love of Christ manifest in you, my anonymous Christian homophobic friend.You are so full of lawyerly ways to convict me of my sin that you forget the ways of love. Very unchristian indeed! You are wrapped up in ways to convict me, and forget that I am a human being. You are a hypocrite and a pharisee. Sorry, seems my burden is to point that out.

Anon 2 more bullshit from you! I ask for the reference, you tell me it is 'true' (I just believe?) and then castigate me for my lack of faith!Well, I will also refer you to get some grounding on Critical thinking. Maybe it will help, so that we can have some real discussion instead of your apparent obfuscations.

I was curious about this supposed article, and went exploring."The Guide" was - and is - yes, a gay magazine published in the US. But they deny ever having printed any such article. It appears to be (yet another) right-wing fabrication - an exact echo of the Georgina Oundo affair currently playing out in Uganda.The relevant Letters page from the Sept 2003 issue can be found here:http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=D41C25CD-A1CC-41FA-943DB076DCAE2233 I quote it in its entirety:Crooked straightsAre you aware that the anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition has reprinted a 1987 article from The Guide and has posted it to their web site?The article, "Overhauling Straight America," is posted at http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/OverhaulingStraight.pdf. The reprint includes the following statement: "As a public service, TVC is reprinting the full text of this Guide article below. (This article has been widely distributed on the Internet and is available at a number of other web sites.)"G. Herekmedia@herek.netThe article in question never appeared in The Guide. As with a lot of claims the right-wing puts out, this one is sheer fabrication. Of course, regular readers of The Guide would never imagine that we'd publish the dreck in question; the authors of "Overhauling Straight America" appear to be pathetic homos trying to "overcome" their homosexuality in their quest to become junior straight people. (One quote: "... In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector." Puke.) We're not begging the straight world to tolerate us-- we're bringing the straight world an exciting, different way to think about sex, a gay gift for everyone!April 21, 2009 8:34 PM Post a Commentgayuganda said...

Spirax, I love that. We're not begging the straight world to tolerate us-- we're bringing the straight world an exciting, different way to think about sex, a gay gift for everyone! When will they have the guts to see that? Hey Some Guy.First, thanks for your observations...! Christians on my blog! I do love puncturing their overblown balloons. Just love it. And when they jump it to defend, I love it also. If you dont want to defend the homophobia, why, just dont. No compulsion to that is there?Otherwise, I love poking that gas and letting it out. Especially when it is just hot air. Stop playing victim? Wow, I am feeling nauseated. Is that what I am playing? Pull back a second, and ask yourself, what did the Nazis say about the jews (and homosexuals) when they were gassing them in the final solution. Stop playing victim.It is such a nice, macho, response. We are wimps. If we were not, we would not cry. And of course leave you and your ilk to continue your persecution of us...!I will use all weapons at my disposal. Including a high faluting laugh at your defence.And by the way, you are so increadibly naive I would like to coat you for a gay Ugandan and dump you here for a few seconds. Wonder, would you last a day? My blog is pointless? Why are you reading it? You have gay friends who are happy where they are in Uganda...! Wow! You are a realy tough, open minded guy. I salute you. Reminds me of the guys who used to justify apartheid, and slavery saying 'we have friends who are niggers. They are happy. Why are you complaining?' You are something, Some Guy. Truly something. Me. gug!

April 22, 2009 12:56 AM

Anonymous said...

gug, Your grammar is going. You were asked IF you had seen the document? Nobody said YOU HAD. But of course you had to assume the victim posture. As usual.

Anyway, if you have not seen it, it seems you are one of the victims of it. Simple as that. You've been had. You follow their instructions to the letter without realising you have been conditioned to do so. "We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America [or Uganda or wherever else].

"THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICABy Marshall Kirk and Erastes PillContents1. Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly And Often As Possible2. Portray Gays As Victims, Not As Aggressive Challengers3. Give Protectors A Just Cause4. Make Gays Look Good5. Make The Victimizers Look Bad

"The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."

By the way, read Spiralx's comment again. Is he saying it is a right-wing fabrication or that it is an ex-gay fabrication or what? Look up 'sophistry'. The document is genuine. Don't be so backwater - you are on the net, investigate it for yourself. Otherwise you fulfil "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest... LIE LIE LIE..." Courtesy Paul Simon.

"There is no shame in believing a lie until you find out the truth."

April 22, 2009 5:21 PM

spiralx said...The document is NOT genuine - at least, not in the way that the rightwing fascistas would have you believe, anon! It's curious, really, where it actually came from. I mean as an exercise by its authors, not just how it managed to get published somewhere (though NOT in "The Guide" - or any gay mag). It's significant that if you Google for it, you get not one but two pages of links which are all, relentlessly, American right-wing crusading web-sites. Not ONE single gay site refers to it. In fact, the only one I (finally) did find actually made this self-same comment - that while hardly any gay person has heard of this article or its contents, practically every right-wing bigot has.So it comes across - now - as a propaganda exercise by the Right. Originally? It seems to have been a satire by a rather confused pair of gay men. Wikipedia provides an overview of Marshall Kirk which makes rather sad reading.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_KirkApril 22, 2009 7:15 PM Anonymous said... Spiralx, I am sure our host will excuse me if I speak to you directly. I looked up the reference in wiki. I found the following;1. The document was written by a gay activist under the title, "After the Ball". It was co-authored by Erastes Pill. Look up the meaning of Erastes.I think we can safely say he was an activist too.2. The document was later published as a book.3. There is no suggestion in wiki, or elsewhere that it was intended as satire.4. There is no suggestion that it was written by right-wing conservatives i.e. that the authors were NOT activists but right-wingers.They specifically talk about gays 'winning the battle'. They do were not talking about renouncing homosexuality.5. Yes, it is sad that Marshall Kirk appears to have suffered from disorders ranging from migraines to depression (or were they related conditions?) This of course does not detract from the clarity of his writing or his intentions. 5. Who published the book? Doubleday, a regular publisher. Big respectable one. Not so difficult to understand, the author had impeccable credentials as an academic, a writer and as a researcher.6. I take what you say about the links to conservative websites. Yes, the conservatives would be interested in disseminating any information about anything they perceived as a threat to their own values. They are actively sharing this information with everyone they can. They are talking about the Agenda "as loudly and as often as possible." Because you see, they too have their own Agenda. Everyone is allowed one. If I told you I have it from a gay activist that there is an Agenda, would you believe me? I am assuming you are totally unaware of it.

I don't find it "sinister". But see gug's blog of Apr 11. And I quote:

"But here are some questions. Where did Mr Langa find these eight-plus men, led by George “Georgina” Oundo? What attracted these men to Mr Langa and not Archbishop Luke Orombi, for example? Had he all along known them to be gay? Or had he planted them in the local gay community in the first place as part of a plan to undermine gays and lesbians in Uganda? Do the police have any reason to not look closely into the activities of the Family Life Network?"

I do find it curious that Stephen Langa has enough money, and contacts, not only to co-opt George Oundo (and I gather, 7 others, I wasn't there), but to then hold quite large and well-publicised public meetings (with no objection from the govt) to promote his idea of the "gay agenda".

It was the SA-based web-site Behind The Mask which gave an interesting description of the reasons Oundo and others might want to be involved with this, when you'd think their admissions amounted to self-destruction and a possible criminal investigation. That description, again, gug copied onto this site.

It is clear enough that there is an overt link with certain southern US churches, who in turn are linked to right-wing political US affiliates - as the whole importation of Stephen Lively, etc. showed. I suspect Langa to be part of the same ongoing exercise, that's all.

From what I can see here, this "Anonymous Some Guy Said" person has actually said that he IS a Gay sympathiser. Why is it that we homosexuals seem to have a need to cling to the status of victimhood? We can be gay and be victorious in our gayness even in the midst of all the homophobia that surrounds us. I have always believed that we ourselve have a role to play in enlightening straight people as to who we are. We African gay people in particular are failing in this responsibility. We constantly portray ourselves as being belligerent and antagonistic, and find that quite often, the outcome of our efforts is the direct opposite of what we desire. Let us calm down and take a second look at our approach.

"Some Guy" did, yes. Though his "sympathy" is rather barbed, and also rather ignorantly patronising in places.

"Anon" didn't. And I don't get your comment about gays (African gays?) "constantly portray ourselves as being belligerent and antagonistic". Where do you get that from? The media promote something like that, but SMUG simply stand up and say what they think. They certainly weren't the ones marching down the road waving and "storming" Parliament, dancing and spitting in public like SSempa, or using language like "appalling and disgusting" (Langa).

Glad you found the article interesting, Anon. Yes, they were both gaymen, no-one's ever said otherwise. "Erastes Pill", though, is a pseudonym, not a real name. A kind of joke, really: a lot of gay men adopt them.

The document was followed by a book, which was based around the same themes. A satire? Possibly. No-one really knows. My guess is that Marshall, who seems to have been genuinely gifted in certain areas, really hoped his plan could be used pro-actively and to help make gay people more acceptable at a time when the general public were not as accomodating in the US as they are today. Much of it, actually, is common sense.

"Conservatives". Yes, they are. Bigots, as well, I'm afraid, and fanatical, too, some of them. Much as here in Uganda. The tone of the web-sites clearly suggests an emotional agenda, and not just "disseminating information". Though I'm not sure they're aware of the difference themselves.

A "gay agenda"? In as much as there's a committment to equal rights for equal human beings, yes. But - as one concerned lady once said to me - "an evil plan to destroy society as we know it, and break up the family unit"? Nope. Sorry.

Let me ask you this, what do you find sinister about George Oundo's revelations? Two posts or so ago you say, "It appears to be (yet another)right-wing fabrication - an exact echo of the Georgina Oundo affair currently playing out in Uganda."I am interested to know what you see in what he is doing/has done. I have tried to see how it relates to conspiracy/fabrication but can't.

I don't find it "sinister". But see gug's blog of Apr 11. And I quote:

"But here are some questions. Where did Mr Langa find these eight-plus men, led by George “Georgina” Oundo? What attracted these men to Mr Langa and not Archbishop Luke Orombi, for example? Had he all along known them to be gay? Or had he planted them in the local gay community in the first place as part of a plan to undermine gays and lesbians in Uganda? Do the police have any reason to not look closely into the activities of the Family Life Network?"

I do find it curious that Stephen Langa has enough money, and contacts, not only to co-opt George Oundo (and I gather, 7 others, I wasn't there), but to then hold quite large and well-publicised public meetings (with no objection from the govt) to promote his idea of the "gay agenda".

It was the SA-based web-site Behind The Mask which gave an interesting description of the reasons Oundo and others might want to be involved with this, when you'd think their admissions amounted to self-destruction and a possible criminal investigation. That description, again, gug copied onto this site.

It is clear enough that there is an overt link with certain southern US churches, who in turn are linked to right-wing political US affiliates - as the whole importation of Stephen Lively, etc. showed. I suspect Langa to be part of the same ongoing exercise, that's all.

From what I can see here, this "Anonymous Some Guy Said" person has actually said that he IS a Gay sympathiser. Why is it that we homosexuals seem to have a need to cling to the status of victimhood? We can be gay and be victorious in our gayness even in the midst of all the homophobia that surrounds us. I have always believed that we ourselve have a role to play in enlightening straight people as to who we are. We African gay people in particular are failing in this responsibility. We constantly portray ourselves as being belligerent and antagonistic, and find that quite often, the outcome of our efforts is the direct opposite of what we desire. Let us calm down and take a second look at our approach.

"Some Guy" did, yes. Though his "sympathy" is rather barbed, and also rather ignorantly patronising in places.

"Anon" didn't. And I don't get your comment about gays (African gays?) "constantly portray ourselves as being belligerent and antagonistic". Where do you get that from? The media promote something like that, but SMUG simply stand up and say what they think. They certainly weren't the ones marching down the road waving and "storming" Parliament, dancing and spitting in public like SSempa, or using language like "appalling and disgusting" (Langa).

George Oundo walked in to Martin Ssempa's church as do dozens of youth everyday. With questions. The REAL question is why was George attracted to Church? He says he is struggling with unwanted same sex attraction. That is HIS life experience and how he wants to deal with it.

Being gay is a way of life, naturally George and Paul Kagaba will have other issues in their lives, such as how to make a living having squandered their youth being escorts to wealthy men who are now interested in being escorted by younger men than them. Just as I would expect my Christian community to provide me with guidance on economic issues, George expected some kind of safety net from his gay community. On finding it was not there he began to take stock of things. The economics are not separate from his whole experience, our communities are our lives.

Funding

Family Life Network is an advocacy group. Advocacy groups whether pro-homosexual or pro-heterosexual, pro-democracy (even political parties)or whatever tend to receive foreign funding. Stephen Langa, Martin Ssempa and the others do not deny having an Agenda. As you say, nothing sinister there.

The very concept of advocacy is taught by the donors through various organisations. The attendees at FLN's meeting were parents of youth who have been meeting with FLN for ages to discuss issues of youth and sexuality. Why would the police need to investigate their meeting? You got me there.

So in this case the funding may or may not come from the American right-wing via some Southern Baptist churches. Yup, they share a vision on sexuality and the family with Langa, so it is conceivable. Again, I fail to see the mystery.

Thank goodness for Anengiyefa. He is spot on. I like a person who takes responsibility for his choices and does not seek to camouflage them with a lot of belligerence or self-pity, mock hysteria.

I would disagree wih him on one thing, I have not found ordinary homosexual people generally aggressive. had to be aggressive on behalf of a gay man who was being ignored when he wanted service. But he was an ordinary person. The aggression seems to be a new development coming from activists funded, I suspect, by the American Left or Liberal wing. Who funds the gay advocacy groups?

I wonder who is responsible for the portrayal of aggression?. For example, at FLNetwork's conference with Scott Lively, some gay activists attended and interacted with Langa and the others. They sat next to Langa and even had their photos taken together. Civility was the order of the day. What did one daily newspaper report?

"Activists attack anti-gay seminarRodney Muhumuza

Kampala

An ongoing seminar on family values in Kampala has come under attack from activists who accuse its organisers of entrenching prejudice against homosexuals in Uganda. [Interestingly, the article did not give the location of the then ongoing seminar.]

Sexual Minorities Uganda (Smug), a pro-gay watchdog, said in a statement yesterday that the seminar was designed to use religion to “attack lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans”.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and Smug, its local partner, said the seminar was the hate-filled handiwork of the American religious right. etc etc"

That is not what the gay people who attended were saying during the seminar. 'The Truth matters'. Once we subvert it, the results can play against the subverter and not just against those we oppose. We need some decorum. Some honesty.

We need to reflect. Anengiyefa is right.

Spiralx, you nearly steered me away from the original point. The Gay Agenda. You concede Overhauling Straight America by M. Kirk and E. Pill (i) was written by gay men, (ii) and that they may have hoped to implement it in real life and that (iii) it is common sense, i.e. it s implementable as a plan/agenda. So is it unreasonable to suppose it is being implemented even though you personally have not been detailed to participate?